Transparency Institute of Guyana Inc (TIGI) is maintaining that the controversial US$18m signing bonus with ExxonMobil’s subsidiary EEPGL, should have been in the Consolidated Fund and that there was a clear breach of the constitutional provisions.
TIGI yesterday took issue with statements made by Director of the State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA) Professor Clive Thomas about its complaint about the signing bonus and said that its primary concern has always been that it was not deposited into the Consolidated Fund.
Thomas told Stabroek New last week that investigating the signing bonus complaint is going down ‘fool’s alley’ as the money never left the state’s possession. He was at the time clarifying statements made by his deputy Aubrey Heath-Retmeyer earlier this month that the agency was awaiting additional information from PPP executive Gail Teixeira. Like TIGI, Teixeira had also filed a complaint which she said was never addressed by Thomas or anyone at SARA.
TIGI said that following the publication of Thomas’ comments in the May 25 edition of this newspaper, it felt it was necessary to clarify the request made to SARA. TIGI said that it first wrote to SARA on April 20, 2018 asking the agency “to recover the signing bonus for the Consolidated Fund.”
The director of SARA responded in a letter dated June 5, 2018 indicating that “We [SARA] respectfully urge that any evidence, which you [TIGI] might have in relation to any unlawful conduct in this matter be forwarded to us to aid our consideration and investigation.” In response, TIGI dispatched a second letter to SARA on November 22, 2018 indicating the basis of its complaint and stating its willingness to meet. From all indication there has not been any communication since.
In the release it was made clear by the local anti-corruption watchdog that it also felt it necessary to “especially make it clear that TIGI did not at any time accuse any member of the government of converting the signing bonus to personal use.”
“It is important to note that the SARA Director’s expressed view does not challenge the assertion that the signing bonus was deposited outside of the Consolidated Fund. Hence, we conclude that we were unsuccessful at pointing to `any unlawful conduct’ in relation to the signing bonus that is compelling enough for SARA to act. Nevertheless, we maintain that the signing bonus is vulnerable to capricious and potentially illegal use as long as it is not reflected in the Consolidated Fund where it would receive parliamentary oversight,” the release said before adding that TIGI also continues to ponder what the government might “find compelling enough as a reason for preferring to violate the constitutional provision on managing public funds and to evade accountability in this matter.”
The signing bonus was paid to government in June of 2016 but there was no official acknowledgement of this by the David Granger administration until the information was leaked to the media in December 2017. Government’s decision to deposit the US$18 million signing bonus received from ExxonMobil’s subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd (EEPGL) into a Bank of Guyana account, had been criticised as unlawful, with critics saying that the funds should have been placed into the Consolidated Fund as it is public money.
Following criticism, government said that the money, which would in part be used to pay Guyana’s legal fees for the border controversy case with Venezuela, would be deposited into the Consolidated Fund before being released. The administration’s handling of the signing bonus was also challenged in court.
Misled the public
TIGI pointed out yesterday that the leaked letter to the Bank of Guyana confirmed that even while the politicians either misled the public or deflected questions, the signing bonus had been received more than a year earlier and that it was deposited into an account that was not established by an act of parliament.
“Consequently, the money was not reflected in the Consolidated Fund as prescribed by the constitution. The arrangement, notwithstanding the fact that the money was not converted to private use, left the fund vulnerable to misuse given the lack of parliamentary oversight. The vulnerability of the fund motivated TIGI’s complaint to the SARA,” the statement read.
TIGI included the text of its June 5, 2018 letter to SARA in its press release.
In the letter the institute insisted on the recovery of the signing bonus while pointing out that since its response of August 8, 2018 to “your cricket match invitation”, there has been no further dialogue.
In setting out its position, TIGI said that the Petroleum Contract Signing Bonus should have been deposited into the Consolidated Fund for Parliamentary oversight. “It is a State asset, not yet allocated to the Government by Parliament. To do and to behave otherwise, is unlawful conduct. It is irrelevant that other governments do or did it,” the letter said.
It added that whether the unlawful conduct is a crime or a tort may be debatable, but the example of Government doing what it pleases without regard for the letter of the law it has been elected to uphold and enforce, lowers the bar to whatever propensity some individuals might have had to criminal enterprise. It contributes to an atmosphere of contempt for the law and an increase in crime, not the reduction the SARA Director is supposed to consider in S. 7(1). The section sets out the functions of the agency.
“The issue is not one of unlawful enrichment of any individual or set of individuals in the Government, and no one in TIGI has ever so alleged since we have become aware that the signing bonus appears to have the oversight of the Bank of Guyana,” TIGI said before adding that since Section 8 of the Act gives the Director the power to determine which particular operations are to be mounted by SARA, “we urge you to a genuine engagement to recover the Signing Bonus for the Consolidated Fund.”
“We had hoped to have dialogue on this matter, but it seems to have been put off sine die by your side in your policy analyst’s email of July 23. We stand ready to meet with you on this or on any other matter of transparency and accountability, e.g., the Agency Draft Code of Conduct, and the Anti-Corruption, Ethics And Compliance Handbook which you so kindly shared with us,” the letter concluded.
SARA’s Director repeatedly emphasised to this newspaper that this is not a matter to be investigated and he expressed the view that the state should have been more open and upfront and not hide anything.
“We are going down a fool’s alley because we know where the money is deposited. There is no claim that somebody misappropriated the money and the law requires us to recover the assets of the state. So if the state is in possession of it, we don’t have a premise to work on,” he said, later noting that the agency doesn’t believe Teixeira “makes sense. She is confusing information with evidence. We will have to find evidence that it left the state and somebody other than the state…has had possession and ownership of it and that has never happened.”
